Inquisition proceedings

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Scene from an inquisition trial (painting by Francisco de Goya , 1746–1828)

The inquisition procedure ( Latin inquisitio , questioning, investigation ' ) is one under Pope Innocent III. (1161–1216) developed form of investigation and criminal proceedings. The inquisition procedure was initially used as a procedure against clerics within the church. It established itself in the first decades of the 13th century. the basis of lawsuits in the context of the Inquisition , which derives its name from the procedure, developed in the course of the late Middle Ages into the main procedural form of secular and spiritual jurisdiction and was used as such until the 18th century. The chairman of a spiritual inquisition court was called an inquisitor .

Mark

In contrast to other forms of court (compare Roman law ), such as As the up to the establishment of the Inquisition proceedings prevailing Akkusationsverfahren in which disputes between two private plaintiffs were negotiated, raised in an inquisition process is not a party to the conflict, but an authoritarian accusers action on its own initiative (ex officio) and in the public interest ( ex officio principle ). The prosecutor and the judge thus coincided. An inquisitor could already become active when a person's bad reputation (mala fama) became known. In contrast to the accusation procedure, relatives, minors or people of bad repute were also able to testify in the inquisition procedure.

All investigations which, according to a different legal understanding, would be necessary for a suspicion, an indictment and the opening of a process, were carried out in the process itself, with the exception of the search for evidence and indictment. In an inquisition proceeding, the focus was on the determination of the truth that could possibly be revealed by confession , and not on the indictment. Material evidence was not valid before the Inquisition Court . This means that to prove guilt or innocence there was only the possibility of testimony from witnesses, who were often supported by further testimony, whereby the names of the witnesses testifying against him were kept secret from the accused. Because of this procedure, the inquisition processes often took a long time. A confession was sought as the primary evidence. In both ecclesiastical and secular inquisition proceedings, torture has been permitted as a means of obtaining a confession since the 13th century.

In the inquisition process, unlike in the accusation process, divine judgments or cleansing silk were no longer used as a means of determining guilt; the rational argument was in the foreground. Furthermore, the course of the process was now recorded in the presence of witnesses. Never before had such systematic information been written down and collected during processes. In this respect, the inquisition procedure can be considered a modernized form of procedure compared to the accusation procedure.

The medieval inquisition process should not be confused with the inquisition maxim ( principle of official investigation ) of late ancient Roman law, which states that the facts are determined ex officio , whereby the investigation and the final decision are not necessarily made by the same institution (see below).

history

Roman royal period

A procedure similar to the principle of the inquisition procedure was already known in the Roman royal period . It was completely unregulated and was determined by the arbitrariness of the magistrate, who acted on denunciation , as the head of the procedure. Because of this problem, the procedure was replaced by a procedure determined by the principle of indictment .

Late antiquity

Under Emperor Justinian I between 528 and 534 AD with the Corpus iuris civilis, the so-called inquisition maxim ( principle of official investigation ) was introduced. This means that an institution can generally investigate a specific person or organization on its own. A plaintiff as in accusation proceedings (indictment proceedings) or denunciation by third parties ( infamation proceedings ) is not a prerequisite for the opening of a process. Investigations and judgments should take place ex officio according to the state of knowledge. The comprehensive investigation of facts and evidence should be the basis for a conclusive judgment. The results of the preliminary proceedings are the basis of the judgment.

middle Ages

The introduction of the inquisition procedure, which only nominally referred to the inquisition maxim of late ancient Roman law, in canon law goes back to Pope Innocent III. (1161-1216) back. In 1215 the new form of procedure became binding for the church. The Inquisition proved to be an effective instrument primarily against heretics and was used in the church as a preliminary investigation and criminal procedure against crimes associated with heresy such as witchcraft or fornication . The secular jurisdiction took over the procedural practice of the Inquisition for their criminal trials, where the Inquisition proceedings and the like. a. was also used during the later modern witch hunts .

In the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation , the adaptation into criminal law began with the Worms Reformation of 1498 and the Constitutio Criminalis Bambergensis of 1507. It becomes imperial law with the Constitutio Criminalis Carolina (in German the Embarrassing Neck Court Code of Charles V of 1532 ).

Modern times

With the enactment of the Code d'instruction criminelle , the French code of criminal procedure under Emperor Napoleon on November 16, 1808 and the takeover of the legal institutions developed there in the German states, the inquisition process came to an end throughout Germany .

Theory of the canonical inquisition procedure in the Middle Ages

In principle, the inquisition proceedings were not a party process , especially since neither the prosecutor nor the accused appeared as a party to the proceedings in the modern sense. The inquisition judge was responsible for establishing the truth. The accused was the object of the proceedings and had no legal hearing , as is the case today with an accused as a party to the proceedings . His participation in the process only took place insofar as this was necessary for the determination of a judgment.

Implementation in the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation

Formally, the name of the Holy Inquisition, like the inquisition proceedings incumbent on it, was derived from the inquisition maxim (see principle of official determination ) of late ancient Roman law; In practice, however, its introduction meant increasing legal uncertainty due to religious zeal, since its innovations consisted of the abolition of any procedural separation of powers and the introduction of torture.

Church inquisition proceedings and Germanic accusation proceedings

Accusation method

Germanic law provided for the complaint to be brought in exclusively by the injured party in the form of the accusation process. All the plaintiff could do was bring the lawsuit. The evidence was carried out by cleaning silk of Eidhelfern of defendants who did not report as witnesses of what is happening, but for the reputation just standing of the accused. As soon as the defendant was able to obtain these assistants, the prosecution had failed. As a rule, only an accused who had confessed or had a bad repute was convicted. Where there was no private lawsuit, no proceeding could be opened. Thus the accusation procedure also worked according to the principle: "Where there is no plaintiff, there is no judge."

If there were still doubts, people usually resorted to divine judgment , often in the form of a duel between the plaintiff and the defendant (see Holmgang and court battle ). There were disputes due to such dishonorable insults (so-called full legal words according to Germanic law ), which according to legal usage immediately required a duel up to death or the withdrawal of the insult in order to restore the honor of the insulted (see Neiding ).

Differences to the inquisition procedure

Against this background, it is understandable that the settlement of legal disputes in the early Middle Ages was essentially determined by the feud , which was only limited by the peace of God and the peace of the land , while judicial proceedings played practically no role. From a legal point of view, the inquisition proceedings were a step forward, since the evidence was no longer exclusively influenced by the reputation of the accused, but could be carried out through objective investigations by a competent authority; in practice, however, any legal security in the inquisition proceedings was undermined due to the abolition of the separation of powers and torture .

Legal uncertainty due to the inquisition proceedings

For contemporaries, the introduction of rational evidence actually meant a considerable restriction of the rights of the accused and thus a significantly increased risk of conviction. Far more devastating, however, was the amalgamation of the independent bodies of judges, investigators, plaintiffs and defense lawyers into one all-powerful clerical inquisition judge.

The understandable discomfort at these significant encroachments on the rights of the accused was anticipated on the part of the church by the fact that, in addition to the result of the investigation, which showed the accused to be guilty, the accused required a confession, which was conveniently obtained through torture. It was believed that God would give the innocent the steadfastness necessary not to confess.

Contemporaries saw the problem that torture could very easily lead to false self-accusations or third-party accusations. As a result, Lorraine law stipulated that torture by the local court lords could only take place after the facts of the case and the results of the investigation had been examined by the prokurateur general in Nancy.

Deficiencies in the inquisition process

The medieval inquisition procedure had a number of disadvantages from then and now.

  • The abolition of any procedural separation of powers. The trial was conducted by a single person, the almighty judge of the Inquisition.
  • The process was secret . The public principle that is taken for granted today did not apply. Especially due to the fact that the proceedings were entirely in the hands of the inquisition judge, there was a risk that, without public control, it would not be the truth but a preconceived result that would be sought and achieved.
  • There was no neutrality on the part of the judge with regard to the result of the investigation on which his verdict was based; after all, he himself had ordered and carried out these investigations. Since the inquisition proceedings were also carried out according to church law, the inquisition judge was the local or a sent cleric, who often judged according to church interests and not according to secular, not even Christian judgments.
  • Any desired result could be achieved through the torture. Wherever torture was an insignificant part of the investigation, any result could be manipulated at any time by using torture.
  • Due to the introduction of complete anonymity for the plaintiff, there was a risk of denunciation. This was not provided according to the Germanic accusation proceedings, because afterwards a complaint was made by a prosecutor who was also responsible for the accuracy of his accusation. In the event that the defendant was found to be innocent, the complainant had to fear considerable punishment. The secular jurisdiction of the Constitutio Criminalis Carolina decreed in 1532:

"Anyone who is accused of opposing kisses is supposed to be held up to the prosecutor or his guardian with his leip, until he bites with castles, caution and persists and security, which the judge accompanies. Four shepherds according to the occasion of the matter and attention of the people for enough recognizes, has done [...] "

- Constitutio Criminalis Carolina, Art. 12 : cit. n. Sellert Rüping, studies and source book on the history of German criminal justice , vol. 1, From the beginnings to the clarification , p. 229
The alternative was for the Inquisition Court itself to become aware of a crime. In fact, the system degenerated in practice during the witch trials up to the use of denunciation boxes, where one could initiate a trial anonymously by throwing a slip of paper without risk and without evidence.

Not used in modern criminal proceedings

The modern inquisition maxim , in German the principle of official investigation , which is not based on the canonical principles of the Holy Inquisition , but on the Roman civil law of the Corpus Juris Civilis , has nothing to do with the medieval inquisition procedure. Counterproposals to the inquisitorial type of criminal procedure based on the principle of official investigation are the adversarial and consensual types .

literature

Web links